Political Correctness

Great Debates
1

“Political Correctness”: let’s debate.

Here are my problems with the term:

  1. Its use tacitly assumes that there has never before been a system of informal censorship based on social beliefs/norms/conventions, that, until recently, one could say or print anything they wanted without fear of muzzling or repercussion.

  2. It is used to divert attention from the topic at hand (same-sex marriage, anti-hate laws, etc) by launching a label that encourages the speaker to abandon the original topic and deny the label (or argue about whether their position is “politically correct” or not, a sidetrack irrelevant to the original topic).
    -Similarly, it is often used to suggest that a desire to be “pc” is the only motivating factor in a person taking a particular position (e.g., in a recent SDMB thread (since erased), one poster accused most participants of “just wanting to be politically correct” rather than granting them the respect of believing that the expressed opinions were sincere). The effect (and presumably the intent), again, is for the so labelled to drop the original topic and defend themselves from the label.

  3. It is often used so broadly that it encompasses drastically opposed social factions, includes, in effect, anyone and everyone who has an opinion (and wields it with some social effect) contrary to the person(s) launching the “pc” label.

I’m curious what function this label has for people these days. Do you use it? If so, how and under what circumstances?

If possible, avoid discussions of the topic which brought up the term; I’m not, on this thread, interested in what you think about gays in the military, pay equity, prayer in schools, etc. References may be necessary, but try to keep it abstract.

Likewise, personal or third party anecdotes in defense of or opposition to a political position, while interesting, and often convincing (especially if one wants to be convinced by them), are not a valid form of argument. (That may seem contradictory, as I’m clearly requesting anecdote in my questions. I mean “My uncle was unfairly skipped over for promotion in favour of a disabled black lesbian, so we should ditch equal opportunity employment programs” is not a valid form of argument.)

2

Arrrgh, too. . .many. . .rules. . .make. . .me. . .angry!

Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

3

I would suggest there is very little to debate.

Actual correctness is much more compelling than “political correctness,” to the extent that the two diverge. Any attempt to dismiss a view as “PC,” rather than addressing the merits of the view is fallacious.

That said, there is clearly some value in referring to “gays” rather than “butt pirates.” If that counts as “politically correct,” then so be it.

  • Rick
4

  1. I disagree that the use of the term has that implication.

  2. Righteo! I positively despise this attention diversion tactic. Being politically correct affords people the luxury of avoiding the harsh truth of reality. It also helps mantain the status quo (i.e., the Reformation and the American Revolution weren’t very pc).

  3. Please provide some examples of the term being used to encompass both ends of the spectrum. In my observations it is almost always the socialistic liberals who are politically correct.

I do not use the term “pc” unless it’s a biting insult. Sometimes I use it to describe my home computer, but the usual term I use is “that piece of shit on the desk”.

Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

5

Isn’t “political correctness” really only old-fashioned “politeness,” albeit carried to the Nth degree?

Calling people “differently-abled,” “African-American,” not telling dead nun jokes, etc., is just a way of trying not to hurt anyone’s feelings.

Now, I’m not saying I agree with all this—much of it is muddle-headed balderdash—but I think it’s mostly done in the name of good manners.

6

It maybe started out in the name of good manners, and still can be used for that purpose. I am not negating that it has had it’s value. But I think it’s obvious that it has mutated into something else too much of the time.

I rarely use the label in a flattering manner. I don’t think I need it - I can actually try to be polite without having someone else dictate or determine what is and what is not “correct” for me to say, or think. For instance (and this is just a “for instance” - not meaning to delve into the issue really) I have a handicapped sister. She just wants to be called “handicapped”. She does not want to be called “physically challenged” or any other term that someone out there has determined is more “correct”. So - what should I call her - what she wants to be called, or what “they” (the Political Correct Police, whoever they may be) think she should be called? Well, obviously I call her “handicapped” - it is more polite to call her what she wants to be called. It is common sense.

And in my opinion, very often political correctness has little to do with common sense.

7

All it is is a way for the sheep (ie, the teeming masses) to think they’re smart. “If I use these words,” they think, “everyone will like me. Bahhh bahhh baaaah.”

Balderdash to that. One should be able to use the words one wants to use. If a person is racist, you’re going to be able to tell regardless of whether they use the word “nigger” or “African-American.” It’s the most blatent hypocrasy to hide behind soothing sounding words in order to deliver an offensive idea.

8

I agree with yosemite. It’s inherently different than politeness, Eve, because it is unfair and biased. A PC person will refer to person X (who’s ancestors are from Kenya but whose family has lived in this nation since 1740) as “African American” and in the same sentence person Y (who’s ancestors are South African and has lived in this country for two years) as “white”. Politeness must be fair.

Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

9

Either I’m missing the point or nearly everyone else posting into this thread is.

Addiva: are you trying to say that the phrase ‘politically correct’ is: never used to describe oneself but only the other; is invariably derisive; there exists no standard metric by which to determine if something or someone is PC; is a useless phrase and should be abandoned. If so, then I pretty much agree. To me, the media, and pretty much everyone I know, ‘politically correct’ means ‘stupid crap that a bunch of whiners want me to do, so I guess I’ll do it and keep my job or whatever’. Its a scam - no one believes in it, everyone just does it.

10

Eve has a point. Unfortunately, often what was intended as “politeness” becomes one of several other things:
[ul][]Euphemisms that mask the truth. “Differently abled” – paah! The fact that X is (a) a M.A. in statistics and a whiz at Excel and (b) in a wheelchair because he can walk only a few steps at a time means (a) I should jump at the chance to hire him as a statistical analyst and (b) I should think twice about hiring him as a roving consultant going to clients’ businesses.[]Cover-ups for continued sexism, etc. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen the use “n-person” (Congressperson, salesperson, etc.) where “n-man” was the pre-P.C. form used of a woman while “n-man” continues to be used for the male practitioners of the craft. Men aren’t persons, too?[]Means of drawing a new us/them line: E.g., He didn’t use “womyn” so he must not be supportive of us. Make me walk across a tightrope on my tongue, will you?[]Let’s revamp our thinking and throw out anything that doesn’t fit. There is a truly great poem by Lowell that begins “Once to every man and nation/comes the moment to decide…” Man is here used in the sense of human being, as context makes clear, but needing to change it becomes an excuse for rejecting the whole poem on the basis that “it fails to take the process by which one’s beliefs change into account, reducing it to a one-step event.” Oh, my stars and garters![/ul]

11

See, now, I don’t think of PC as a particular set of beliefs. I think of it as a way of arriving at a particular set of beliefs. The term also, for me, refers to a method of argument. For example

is a very interesting statement to me, because I think of politically correct people as those who are most likely to use labels in this way. Against same-sex marriage? You’re homophobic. Don’t like something about anti-hate laws? You’re clearly a racist. Etc., etc.

“Politically correct” refers to a mind set in which the PCer has constructed their world-view based on what they think will win broad approval from their peers. For a person’s views to be a basis of their worth in the eyes of others, it follows that the “wrong” opinions must incur severe disapprobation. Not merely disagreement, but actual derision and disdain. This is the hallmark of “PC” as I use it, and I think it is the lack of depth that leads to techniques of argument like the one mentioned.

Another factor is the characteristic that a PC person’s views are shaped by their desire for approval. This excludes from the designation not only those who popularize views they have reached through experience or intellectual effort, but also those who cynically pander rubbish to the masses (hence Rush Limbaugh is not PC, even though he is espousing opinions designed to meet the approval of his followers. He’s not wide-eyed enough to be PC).

Generally, I think of PC as a phenomenon of the young, college-student crowd, at least nowadays. It also seems to be more common among social liberals, though obviously I wouldn’t use the term for them exclusively. In fact I would never use the term in an argument at all, since it is just a label and not an argument; I might, however, use it as an adjective when speaking to someone else: “Bill’s opinions are nothing if not politically correct.”

I disagree with Sake that there were not enormous elements of PC to the Reformation and American Revolution, even if they weren’t called that. I would argue that the Red Scare of the fifties was the quintessential PC movement - as I use the term, anyway - and obviously did not come from the left. It’s just that the nation’s politics are not static and at present, it seems to be mostly a lefty thing.

12

Cooper, it is you who are missing the point. A great many people believe are politically correct, believe in it, and view those who don’t as blasphemers.

APB, you are using the PC term incorrectly if you would apply it to the amazingly non-PC witchhunts of the 50’s. Just because labels and catch phrases are used doesn’t mean it’s politically correct. PC implies a going-out-of-one’s way so as to refrain from offending anyone anywhere. McCarthy sure as hell didn’t do that.

I’d love to hear what you thought was PC about the Reformation and the American Revolution.

Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

13

Sake Samurai disagrees with #1, however APB9999 offers an excellent example with the “red scare” of the fifties. The disagreement seems to lie in the definitions of “politically correct.” I meant, and I believe APB meant, that what is or is not deemed “politically correct” changes with the social climate. During McCarthy’s House UnAmerican Activities Committee days, there were strict muzzles on people who wanted to advocate, say, land reform, or for close ties with the Soviet Union. It was, in effect, politically incorrect to do these things, and violators of that political climate’s brand of correctness may have found themselves labelled as “communists” (a gag effect similar to that of “politically correct” outlined in my #2). Similarly, until this century, most women had great difficulty getting writing of their own published. While the term itself was almost certainly unknown, it was “politically correct,” at the time, to discount their contributions.

Sake (along with many others here) seems to define politically correct as the (current) impulse which many see as designed to remove from the language any potential of offense to anyone. This is certainly the way it is most often used, and, I believe, the circumstance for which it was devised (and yes, Cooper, I think the term is “never used to describe oneself but only the other [and] is invariably derisive”). However, this does not mean that the notion of pre- or proscribing language based on political ideologies or sociopolitical climate is new.

Cooper: Your response was more in line with what I was after. I didn’t expect, though I probably should have, a series of rants about what’s wrong with those f**kin’ pcers. I was originally interested in whether or not others saw the term as a valid designation, and, although I haven’t seen much discussion of that specific topic, I do have my answer. :wink:
I should add that I meant is it a valid designation to apply to others (as in, you’re just being pc), and not is it a valid designation to apply to others in the negative (as in, that’s not very pc of you; say that differently). Clearly, there are people in this forum who feel they have been muzzled by a phenomenon they classify as political correctness. I am certain they have been and agree that they should not have been.

However, I take issue with the classification for the reasons stated in the OP. Were I in the United States, there are things that I believe but would not say with regard to some religious practices in that country. There are also things that I believe but would not say with regard to patriotism. I would not classify under the same term the forces discouraging me from so speaking.

Which takes me to another of Sake’s disputes:
My third complaint (in the OP) about the term being used too broadly had no examples, so here’s one: anti-porn censoring impulses often come from both religious circles and feminist circles, causing the claim “Those PCers want to take away my constitutionally protected right to wank along with Traci Lord” to encompass (at least) two social factions who are ordinarily none too cozy. Instead, why not say, “Some people don’t like my hobbies for this reason (moral, religious, etc) and for that reason (sociopolitical, economic, etc), and here’s how I’m going to dispute their claims in a valid and meaningful way.”

Finally, APB said:

You are right. I think both occur, and for the same purpose.

And, also from APB, this point is very interesting:

14

Obviously, as Aviddiva said, I was not missing the point. I will also argue that it is not true that anyone believes in P.C. itself - that is, there is no one who would say “I’m PC and I’m proud”. There are people who hold opinions for reasons that are sheepish and sad - and they are often referred to as being PC - but they do not think this of themselves.

If you can find, written anywhere, a single example of someone saying “PC and proud” or “Three cheers for PC” or anything of this nature, I promise to drop dead from shock.

15

I think another aspect of PC thinking is the idea that even mentioning anything other than the PCers ‘perfect picture’ is bad. For example, in the recent discussion over Cecil’s homosexual marriage column, several people claimed outrage at the fact that the cartoon depicted one of the gay couple in a dress. Their position appeared to be that depicting such a situation was some evil attempt to spread prejudice against gays, rather than just a humorous juxtaposition of the '50s family with a gay couple.

Of course, the most important part of the PC mindset is taking offense at anything that can in any way be derogatory, unless it’s directed at white straight males. Compare the rabid response that using ‘housing-project trash’ to describe an uneducated black man would evoke to the non-response that using ‘trailer-park trash’ to refer to an uneducated white man continually evokes.

Or take a look at the older discussion on this board about the man sleeping with the 11 year old girl he thought was 18. Men who go out looking for one-night stands were talked about as scum of the earth, yet NOTHING was said about the women who were also involved in said one-night stands. Now imagine that the topic been about gay men having one-night stands, and that several people started commenting on the slimy types who would do that. I’m sure the PC crowd on this board would have come in to defend the gays, with loud cries of ‘homophobe’ and ‘gay-bashers’ to fuel the fire.

Kevin Allegood,

“At least one could get something through Trotsky’s skull.”

  • Joseph Michael Bay
16

You asked for it, Coop: “I’m PC and proud!”. . .”Politically Correct and Proud!”. . .Being PC is fun. PCism is not just an attitude, it is a way of life!(check out this link, it’s a riot!)

Now, not only are you missing the point, but you’re also a dead man!

Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

17

Well, since none of these sites express opinions that are even remotely politically correct, I suppose I will elect to laugh at their obviously satirical nature rather than drop dead. Whew!

I find it odd you can so obstinately assert that I missed the point when Avi made it clear I was the only one who even answered his question.

18

Due to the negative connotations that the term “politically correct” (or “PC”) has assumed, we will heretofore refer to it as “Socially Acceptable Nomenclature.” Thank you.

19

Rous - beautiful.

This thought actually struck me at lunch today - that since the normal PC tactic is to change the name of something as soon as everyone understands what it really means - that PC itself will change names soon. I think yours is a very good substitute, hopefully all those nasty den - gasp - I mean connotations will go away.

20

I thought it changed to “sensitive” at some time.